When Addressing Climate Change Is It a Fossil Fuel Problem or an Emissions Problem?

In a recent conversation I had with a spokesperson from the energy industry, we talked about the way forward for the planet in addressing climate change? She knew I was a member of the Citizens’ Climate Lobby and a science and technology blogger with over a thousand articles written over a decade discussing energy and global warming. She asked me the following question:

“Is climate change about fossil fuels or emissions?”

My response initially was “it’s about both.”

She continued:

“Isn’t it the emissions that are the cause of climate change?”

I responded “Yes.”

She then said the following:

“The world is energy-hungry and right now much of the energy we consume comes from fossil fuels. So if we could separate fossil fuels from the emissions issue, wouldn’t that be a desirable outcome?”

My response was “Absolutely but how can we separate the two?”

This is a tough question to solve because the primary source of global-warming emissions is human activity that generates greenhouse gasses (GHGs). It’s these GHGs that is our problem and the principal purpose of government climate policies to date has been to try to stop adding them to the atmosphere. At the same time, the global economy that provides jobs, food, shelter and other primary needs craves the energy that comes from the fossil fuels that produce the GHGs. So separating the two isn’t easy. And doing so is something we have never considered until global warming became a thing in the late 20th century. Up until then, our progress was measured by the continuous rise in the gross domestic product (GDP), a monetary measure of human economic success. In the face of the worst outcomes that our planet is currently and in future will deliver, a rethinking of how we measure success is long overdue.

Getting back to my conversation with my friend from the energy industry, in answer to my previous question she stated: “It’s a conundrum,” and then went on “but we must find ways to protect industry jobs, the economies of nations, and the environment.”

When you examine the problem there are two solutions:

1. we can stop adding GHGs to the air.
2. We can increase natural and technological ways to remove GHGs from the air.

These two can be categorized as mitigation actions. Solutions include:

1. Stopping adding GHGs can be done by ending the burning of all fossil fuels. As a solution, it’s simple. In terms of practicality, it’s not. The damage to national economies and society could be prolonged. For industry, the stranded assets tied to fossil fuels and energy production using them would severely impact these businesses and those they employ.
2. Finding ways to conserve the energy we currently use and reduce the amount needed for human economic activity. This seems highly practical and has some economic advantages because it requires us to come up with energy conservation solutions. A bonus in implementing this kind of activity is benefits such as lower energy costs, and the lessening of environmental impacts such as light pollution and urban heat islands.
3. Finding ways to create energy without emissions. Note I didn’t say without burning fossil fuels. Renewable energy solutions are zero-emission and the primary choice of environmentalists. Nuclear power is a second zero-emission solution that comes with the radioactive waste issue. And fossil-fuel generated zero-emission energy that captures, sequesters or uses GHGs in manufacturing and materials to keep them out of the atmosphere permanently is the third.
4. Finding ways to remove GHGs from human activities that currently contribute to global warming both in the present and through the latency effect well into the future. The natural way to remove carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxides can be done through soil sequestration, reforestation and afforestation. The technological solution is known as direct air capture.

As a pragmatist, I recognize that fixating on ending the fossil fuel industry is impractical and economically a high-risk move. But as an environmentalist and futurist, ending GHG emissions is our only route forward to ensure that my grandchild and those who follow her will inherit a world not subject to the extremes that atmospheric warming will bring. The emission reduction actions we take now both as environmentalists and as those working in the energy sector will make the difference in terms of leaving a habitable versus inhabitable world on many parts of this planet.

What defines uninhabitable? Here’s a sample of last summer’s high temperatures across the planet. All of them are numbers never previously seen at the locations mentioned. Why are these numbers happening? The rise in GHGs in the atmosphere. Four exceed the halfway mark to the boiling point of water.

• 56.7 Celsius (134 Fahrenheit) at Death Valley, California
• 55 Celsius (131 Fahrenheit) in Kebili, Tunisia
• 54 Celsius (129 Fahrenheit) in Ahvaz, Iran
• 50.7 Celsius (123.3 Fahrenheit) in Oodnadatta, Australia
• 48.9 Celsius (120 Fahrenheit) in Rivadavia, Argentina
• 48 Celsius (118.4 Fahrenheit) in Athens, Greece
• 20.7 Celsius (69.3 Fahrenheit) on Seymour Island, Antarctica

That’s why addressing emissions whether you are an environmentalist or working in the energy industry is so important. Through mitigation associated with the four actions described above, we can keep from becoming the proverbial frog oblivious to the warming pot of water in which it sits.